For a fairly good discussion on NAT and IPv6, see: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc4864.txt -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Paul Francis > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 9:44 AM > To: Dan York; Rémi Després > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: IPv6 NAT? > > > I wonder if standard approaches to NAT for IPv6 just isn't > going to be much > of an issue even if the IETF ignores it. Since NAT for IPv6 > is much simpler > than for IPv4, a bunch of the issues associated with IPv4 NAT > usage don't > exist. Like, there should be no need for port translation. > No need to time > out mappings. For the most part, NAT for IPv6 should be just a simple > substitution of prefix A for prefix B. What, exactly, are > the range of > choices that NAT vendors need to agree on? > > PF > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > > Behalf Of Dan York > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 9:36 AM > > To: Rémi Després > > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: IPv6 NAT? > > > > Remi, > > > > On Feb 15, 2008, at 5:23 AM, Rémi Després wrote: > > > > > > Dan York wrote : > > > > > > I.e., either we assume no NAT in IPv6, > > or create a NAT standard. Those > > are the only sane options. > > > > > > Just to be clear, that particular text was written by > > Iljitsch van Beijnum, although I agree with him on it. > > > > > > Somehow it can be both, but NOT at the same time : > > > > In the IPv6-only world, to be reached at the end of the > > transition period, NATs should IMO be prohibited. > > > > > > I think we will have to respectfully disagree on this one. > > Count me in the camp that says that NAT will *NEVER* go away > > as long as corporate enterprises believe it is of value to > > them (as I noted in my previous message). Even were we to > > somehow "prohibit" it, enterprises would still do it... or > > our stance on prohibiting it would simply be yet another > > barrier for them to seriously consider moving to IPv6. > > > > NAT is here. NAT is loved (by many). NAT will be with us > > until long after we are all long gone. > > > > The question is whether we standardize how NAT is done with > > IPv6 or whether we just let the vendors go wild with it as > > they did for IPv4. > > > > My 2 cents, > > Dan > > > > -- > > Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology > > Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork@xxxxxxxxx > > Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com > > Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com > > > > Bring your web applications to the phone. > > Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf